Federal criminal charges against state Rep. Sue Schmitz should be dismissed because prosecutors bullied the Democrat and used her indictment and arrest to intimidate other lawmakers facing scrutiny in an ongoing investigation of Alabama's two- year colleges, a federal court motion argues.

''Ms. Schmitz has been chosen as the poster child for this bad faith prosecution in order to intimidate other legislators similarly situated,'' her lawyers said in a dismissal motion filed Friday.

Schmitz, 63, faces four counts each of mail fraud and fraud in a nine-count indictment accusing her of taking more than $175,000 from the two- year college system for work she never performed. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of Schmitz's assets to recover college money she's accused of stealing.

In a series of motions filed last week, Schmitz's lawyers contend her case is another example of a political prosecution, arguing that Republican-appointed federal prosecutors accused of targeting former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman also are targeting Schmitz and other Democrats in Alabama.

Schmitz also told the federal court in Birmingham that she doesn't want a jury trial, but would rather a judge decide her fate. U.S. Attorney Alice Martin objected in a court filing last week, saying, ''The government believes this matter should be tried to a jury, and therefore does not consent to her request.''

The two- year college investigation has resulted in more than a dozen indict-ments, convictions and guilty pleas, including state criminal charges filed against state Sen. E.B. McClain, D-Midfield, and a guilty plea by former state Rep. Bryant Melton, D-Tuscaloosa.

Last week, Schmitz's lawyers publicly linked her case and the two- year college investigation to claims by Siegelman and his allies that his 2006 conviction was the result of a prosecution orchestrated by Republicans.

''Allegations of bad faith and selective prosecutions have become widespread and potentially permeate throughout the entire Department of Justice,'' Schmitz's lawyers wrote in one motion.

They argue Schmitz was targeted because she is a Democrat and AEA member, and her indictment was part of a plan announced by Republican Gov. Bob Riley to reduce the number of Democrats in the Legislature.

They also argue that federal prosecutors working under Martin acted inappropriately by arranging Schmitz's earlymorning arrest in January at her Toney home. Two officers ''with hands on their weapons'' entering her bathroom found Schmitz covered only in a towel, her lawyers wrote. The officers allowed Schmitz to get dressed and then handcuffed her, giving her a paper towel to ''wipe the blood from her hands'' because the cuffs were too tight.

The arrest was not necessary, Schmitz' lawyers argued, because she already had agreed to surrender.

''The actions of law enforcement were intended to and have terrorized, intimidated and harassed Ms. Schmitz and her colleagues,'' one defense motion states.

Schmitz' lawyers also argue she was a victim of selective prosecution because other two- year college workers who had jobs similar to hers have not been indicted. Their motion also cites Riley appointee Malcolm Thomas, director of the commission on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as an example of a similarly situated person not prosecuted although ''a question exists as to whether or not Mr. Thomas has actually performed any work'' at his state job.